etorque does more than help with starts and smooth out shifts ....

[riccnick]

I'm with ya Ric, I like the idea of all that too. I'm starting to wonder though... what's holding this system back? I mean, the paper analysis looks good right; so why isn't this thing producing more noticeable fuel economy results in the real world?

My honest guess? It's programmed for the EPA cycle, and the EPA hasn't gotten their hands on one yet, so Ram self certified it. That and I've been noticing a lot of these trucks come with under-filled fluids from the factory, mine was "1 quart" down on trans fluid, noted at the 10k mile oil change. Who knows how low it actually was. I've heard reports of low diffs too. Not sure if these are eTorque related or not though, as obviously any regular Hemi could have the same problem. My official answer is that if there were huge real world benefits, we'd have seen this system before now. To me, it's a super smooth (most of the time) stop / start system. And I like the novelty of it.

All that stuff you said

The interesting part is, the eTorque system is designed to "gain" it's energy from places where it's conventionally being "wasted" (turned into heat). Between upshifts (honestly, I think that's genius), and regenerative braking, as well as over-cooling the engine so that it can heat soak for longer during a stop / start event (also genius), saving more fuel. It's the "output" of the system I struggle with (clearly, see forum jousting above). It's just not efficient to run an electric motor to assist a gas engine for power delivery purposes, especially not one with such a small battery capacity, as you noted. That's why I don't believe any claims of it being used to supplement engine power during driving conditions. To add useful torque AND spin fast enough AND not have huge parasitic losses, it would need to be a completely different system.

 

[SpeedyV]

I'll say this, for me, as an engineer, I just like having the new tech in the truck. Running the numbers, it just doesn't make sense, especially seeing how (for me) the MPG's aren't there. It's cool though, and I like being able to tell other people about the tech when the truck shuts off and they get all nervous, lol. Plus I can call it a Hybrid too.

The math was different for me, as it was an $800 option.

(Engineer, architect, and sustainability pro here)

 

[riccnick]

The math was different for me, as it was an $800 option.

(Engineer, architect, and sustainability pro here)

Yeah, but are you seeing the mpg numbers? Any amount of money over a 0% improvement in fuel economy is considered a wasted investment, no?

 

[Rtl Colorado]

Only time will tell on the extra investment as it is also supposed to cut down of wear and tear in the transmission by smoothing out shifts and the brakes.
If it doesn't oh well but I am the only one on the block with a hybrid truck

 

[SpeedyV]

Yeah, but are you seeing the mpg numbers? Any amount of money over a 0% improvement in fuel economy is considered a wasted investment, no?

I don’t know. I own the heaviest truck (based on payload sticker) reported on this forum, together with 3.92 gears, and you see my average in mixed driving. I have no non-eTorque basis for comparison.

 

[yellowboy]

How long has this system been in the trucks - just 2019 ?

 

[Brandon_Vickers]

In the end does it really matter? For what you pay for it and real world mpg gains you would probably not pay it off in the end. And then what happens when the battery goes out and you are out of warranty? More $$$.

The same thing happens when your 12v battery dies..... And the eTorque system is covered for 8 years under the emissions warranty, which is WAY longer than the 12v battery.

 

[cruz-in]

I concur. How etorque is implemented is very clever. The idea of working to exploit "wasted" energy from an internal combustion is interesting. I look forward to how this evolves over time.

So far, at least for me, the improvement in MPG does not appear to be that substantial.

I read where other automakers (as I recall Mercedes and Audi were mentioned) have similar systems coming out very soon. As I recall they were more integrated into the drive train as opposed to etorque being sort of a bolt on. Seems to me if etorque was part of the transmission, one could get better efficiency improvement.

As others have said, despite the apparent small improvement in efficiency, I like having it.

 

[Nails]

I’m excited to see some the engineers like guys and tuners get together to play with this system. If it’s anything like other modded hybrids I’ve come across. Interested to see what can be done.
Though I am just a tech that wished I went into the engineering field. Like to think I’m on the upper end of my industry def not engineering level. Ah poor life choices of my early years. Lol
Thanks for the read peeps

 

[Ramit392]

It takes a whole lot of Mechanical Engineers and Electrical Engineers to make the trains that the Railroad Engineers get to play with!

Also, my favorite fireman once said, "ladies love me, I put my hose on the hott stuff!"

I would be a retired "Chemical Engineer" and I have "mastered" it I can turn Wine into urine!

 

[Hammer1]

I have owned 4 Rams and my current has E-torque- Wished I saved the money it's marketing BS

 

[SpeedyV]

I’m excited to see some the engineers like guys and tuners get together to play with this system. If it’s anything like other modded hybrids I’ve come across. Interested to see what can be done.
Though I am just a tech that wished I went into the engineering field. Like to think I’m on the upper end of my industry def not engineering level. Ah poor life choices of my early years. Lol
Thanks for the read peeps

There was a good video (referenced in earlier eTorque threads) in which an FCA engineer was asked about how modifications, e.g. forced induction, might work with eTorque. He smiled a bit and commented that he saw the potential for synergies between these systems.

 

[Brandon_Vickers]

How long has this system been in the trucks - just 2019 ?

For RAM, yes, just 2019 1500s. Jeep had eTorque in 2018 models.

 

[Electrical]

I've been reading up on GM's version of eTorque. GM first put this in production vehicles in 2007 and it's now in its' 3rd generation. Now called eAssist, it uses a 115V battery and, although at a higher voltage, IIUC battery capacity is on par with what the Ram has... about 0.4x kWhr.

It seems that GM is still producing eAssist Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra trucks with 5.3L engines but in limited numbers, limited configurations, and limited locations. I'm not certain about that but I found forum discussions from guys with 2018 eAssist Silverado's, so maybe they are indeed still being produced.

Most forum comments were positive with guys posting good fuel economy numbers... seemingly better than a 5.3L engine by itself. But who knows about that; we all know how fuel economy discussions go. The EPA ratings on the GM trucks are about 2 mpg higher in both city and highway than non-eAssist trucks; much like Ram's eTorque ratings.

Third party "reviews" say eAssist is very much like eTorque; some say they're basically the same, differing only in technical specifics like battery capacity, voltage, and programming. GM's marketing material touts much of the very same things that FCA touts, including that it lengthens cylinder deactivation times.


GM has been playing with this technology for over a decade, taking it through three generations, and now FCA has picked up the torch. These are multi-million dollar investments and in a perfect world, that money could never be approved unless it carried potential to sell more trucks. I think one of the things that sells trucks is bettering the headline-grabbing numbers, like fuel economy. I might have a hard time envisioning such resources being spent for finding "better ways to run the radio", "reduced transmission wear", or "smoother starts/shifts". I can't imagine submitting a million dollar proposal listing these as core goals; advantageous byproducts yes, but idk about core goals.

If true, and if eAssist and eTorque were submitted, approved, developed, and marketed as fuel economy aids... and if both GM and FCA submitted improved fuel economy ratings to the EPA... where does that leave us? Are we in the midst of a huge fraud? Are both GM and FCA playing a dangerously coy and misleading game, risking reputation, public trust, and regulatory wrath? Surely not. But if I'm open to the possibility of God and space aliens, I guess I'm open to that as well.

 

[SpeedyV]

I've been reading up on GM's version of eTorque. GM first put this in production vehicles in 2007 and it's now in its' 3rd generation. Now called eAssist, it uses a 115V battery and, although at a higher voltage, IIUC battery capacity is on par with what the Ram has... about 0.4x kWhr.

It seems that GM is still producing eAssist Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra trucks with 5.3L engines but in limited numbers, limited configurations, and limited locations. I'm not certain about that but I found forum discussions from guys with 2018 eAssist Silverado's, so maybe they are indeed still being produced.

Most forum comments were positive with guys posting good fuel economy numbers... seemingly better than a 5.3L engine by itself. But who knows about that; we all know how fuel economy discussions go. The EPA ratings on the GM trucks are about 2 mpg higher in both city and highway than non-eAssist trucks; much like Ram's eTorque ratings.

Third party "reviews" say eAssist is very much like eTorque; some say they're basically the same, differing only in technical specifics like battery capacity, voltage, and programming. GM's marketing material touts much of the very same things that FCA touts, including that it lengthens cylinder deactivation times.


GM has been playing with this technology for over a decade, taking it through three generations, and now FCA has picked up the torch. These are multi-million dollar investments and in a perfect world, that money could never be approved unless it carried potential to sell more trucks. I think one of the things that sells trucks is bettering the headline-grabbing numbers, like fuel economy. I might have a hard time envisioning such resources being spent for finding "better ways to run the radio", "reduced transmission wear", or "smoother starts/shifts". I can't imagine submitting a million dollar proposal listing these as core goals; advantageous byproducts yes, but idk about core goals.

If true, and if eAssist and eTorque were submitted, approved, developed, and marketed as fuel economy aids... and if both GM and FCA submitted improved fuel economy ratings to the EPA... where does that leave us? Are we in the midst of a huge fraud? Are both GM and FCA playing a dangerously coy and misleading game, risking reputation, public trust, and regulatory wrath? Surely not. But if I'm open to the possibility of God and space aliens, I guess I'm open to that as well.

From my reading, eAssist first appeared on the GM trucks in 2016 (sedans earlier), and it started out as a smaller version of eTorque (13 HP/44 lb-ft). This system was offered on just 700 trucks in 2016, but perhaps they’ve scaled up. The system has been revised to offer 20 HP and 133 lb-ft at the crank (a bit more than eTorque) using an 86 V battery. See this brochure for more details: https://www.vehicleaccessorycenter.com/inc/files/editor/files/17CHSL_eAssistOps_Feb2017_FINAL.pdf#2

 

[JJRamTX]

I'm with ya Ric, I like the idea of all that too. I'm starting to wonder though... what's holding this system back? I mean, the paper analysis looks good right; so why isn't this thing producing more noticeable fuel economy results in the real world?

I don’t know. I own the heaviest truck (based on payload sticker) reported on this forum, together with 3.92 gears, and you see my average in mixed driving. I have no non-eTorque basis for comparison.

I am not sure about the comparison of E-Torque vs Non-E-Torque but my 1500 4x4 5.7 MDS 3.92 was getting 14.2 MPG, and my 1500 4x4 5.7 MDS 3.92 E-Torque is getting 16.4 MPG. I am driving about 1200 miles a month and as semi-technical, semi-engineer, but very good at Math with a calculator! When I do the math the E-Torque difference with my driving habits pays for itself in just under 32 months of use, or right after I reach 38,000 miles on the truck.

 

[Electrical]

From my reading, eAssist first appeared on the GM trucks in 2016 (sedans earlier), and it started out as a smaller version of eTorque (13 HP/44 lb-ft). This system was offered on just 700 trucks in 2016, but perhaps they’ve scaled up. The system has been revised to offer 20 HP and 133 lb-ft at the crank (a bit more than eTorque) using an 86 V battery. See this brochure for more details: https://www.vehicleaccessorycenter.com/inc/files/editor/files/17CHSL_eAssistOps_Feb2017_FINAL.pdf#2

I believe FCA's numbers are after the internal gear multiplication that Ric mentions above. Chevy says tq is at the crank but not clear on how/where hp is measured. However, I tend to think putting hp/tq labels on these systems is just another layer of smoke-n-mirrors; just a new set of numbers to compete over... but they don't really mean anything. I say that because I believe the comments above saying "mild-hybrids" with sub-kWhr batteries contribute nothing to vehicle propulsion. With no propulsion contribution, why confuse us with hp/tq ratings. If the goal of these systems is to off-load electrical functions from the motor, I think the metric of interest is power capacity... kWhr.

I am not sure about the comparison of E-Torque vs Non-E-Torque but my 1500 4x4 5.7 MDS 3.92 was getting 14.2 MPG, and my 1500 4x4 5.7 MDS 3.92 E-Torque is getting 16.4 MPG. I am driving about 1200 miles a month and as semi-technical, semi-engineer, but very good at Math with a calculator! When I do the math the E-Torque difference with my driving habits pays for itself in just under 32 months of use, or right after I reach 38,000 miles on the truck.

I believe the technology is valid, and, all else equal, there should be REAL WORLD fuel economy improvements. I just learned Audi has also picked up the torch and put "eTorque" on 2019 A7's. They don't have a catchy name, they refer to their system with the formal name MHEV, and claim 13 to 20 % better economy. EPA ratings for the 2019 A7 is +2mpg city compared to the non-hybrid 2018 version; highway rating remains the same.

https://www.audi-technology-portal....-mild-hybrid-electric-vehicle-mhev-components

 

[SpeedyV]

I believe FCA's numbers are after the internal gear multiplication that Ric mentions above. Chevy says tq is at the crank but not clear on how/where hp is measured. However, I tend to think putting hp/tq labels on these systems is just another layer of smoke-n-mirrors...

I only showed the numbers to provide some evidence of how similar the systems are. 20 HP and 133 lb-ft (crank) vs. 16 HP and 130 lb-ft (crank). FCA clearly followed a similar formula to GM here; it just looks like they’re scaling it much more quickly.

As for the “smoke and mirrors”...I guess time will tell.

 

[Ramit392]

IMO only, any time reduction of idle is done on a motor for long periods will save fuel,Increase more life to the motor and transmission.We all know long term idle is very hard on the drive trains and increases excessive heat generation,increases friction wear,depletes lubrication properties more rapid in effect producing pre-mature wear.

No engineer here or electronics degree just old school taught to never allow motors to idle for long periods of time.Years back worked on State Patrol cruisers and state trucks in a garage a friend of mine owned to help him out from time to time,it was unreal what extended idle times was doing to these trucks and patrol cars before the 4 year leases was up.

Another nationwide Company I cannot mention the name here current day has live real time GPS on all vehicles and will fire employees who repeatedly allow vehicles to stop/idle who have been warned so many times to stop the practice. The Company identifies the excessive stop/idle times as repeated abuse to Company vehicle. This company claims stop idle time data studied from their actual use saved the Company over 100k in its first year of roll outs just in fuel alone.I understand they are in progress of data studies to measure reduced maintenance costs over 5 year leases as well as reduced liabilities cost.

 

[Electrical]

I only showed the numbers to provide some evidence of how similar the systems are. 20 HP and 133 lb-ft (crank) vs. 16 HP and 130 lb-ft (crank). FCA clearly followed a similar formula to GM here; it just looks like they’re scaling it much more quickly.

As for the “smoke and mirrors”...I guess time will tell.

Gotcha SV.... interesting perspective. Just to clarify, the "smoke and mirrors" comment was directed at putting hp/tq ratings on a system where they don't belong imo; it was not directed at eTorque itself. I'm virtually certain I'm going to give eTorque a shot and order a truck with it.